How many Syrian children are coming here?
Discussion
davek_964 said:
I'm genuinely curious : given the strong cultural differences, if the situation were reversed and 300 British children were camped on the border of Syria - even if they were genuine orphaned kids from a war torn country, and not economic opportunists lying about their age - would they be welcomed with open arms?
Syria like most of the Arab league did not sign up to the 1951 and 1967 UN refugee conventions.If they were camped on the border of Syria, but in a safe country that would house them, I don't think they would take them. The concern is not that it is 300, it is how many will follow. They have been taking in Palestinian refugees as they are Arab Muslims.
The main Arab League countries have taken in Syrian refugees, but unlike Europe they grant them temporary shelter ie - they are refugees, with no rights on citizenship and will be pressured to return once the situation stabilises.
We should ask all these young men effected by war whether they have different views of young white girls who will dress and behave like you have never witnessed in your country, they will have rights and freedoms that you have never witnessed in your country - are you ok with that ?
Whether people understood what Brexit was about doesn't really matter anymore, it is widely accept that immigration was a key theme, and the vote was to leave.
davek_964 said:
I do think the earlier question that was asked is interesting. Even assuming that these 300 are unaccompanied 5 year old orphans, how did they get to Calais?
That is a question that the French need to answer. They must have logged people into the camps.I shall start by saying, if there was a law that said you must befriend one person from that region. I would probably choose a Syrian.
If you remember the attack of 911 there were middle eastern people interviewed, their concern was how it might change their ability to live a normal life in London.
The person said they considered London, although I guess he meant England, as the last place he felt he could live a normal life.
So the Middle Eastern desire to live in England is not the same as those from From Africa or Eastern Europe who may see it as a panacea to all financial problems.
Quite frankly I think we have enough locals doing that
Now England is in the position of recieving what appears to be genuine orphaned refugees, but due to the phenomenal change to the cultural demographic it is understandably being met with opposition.
If I had to guess how the orphans got to Calais.
With one parent, after living in Calais with the Africans, they became so desperate that they decided their child had a better future as an orphan in Britain even though it meant perhaps never seeing them again.
Biker 1 said:
s3fella said:
I know precisely his background
So that justifies calling him a 
??Suggest you read the Rise & Fall of the Third Reich, including all the gory bits involving Dr Mengele before using that kind of language to describe a holocaust survivor.
Have your opinion - fine, I guess that's what freedom of speech/democracy is all about, but describing Lord Dubs in that tone?
in my book. Edited by s3fella on Tuesday 25th October 17:04
He was on TV this morning saying exactly this.
He looks to be like a really old boy who is trying to leave some legacy from him time in office, massaging his ego at the same time.
I'm pretty sure the majority (ie 50% +) of the country think the "refugees" in Greece, a country we have collectively bailed out for years and where many of us aspire to holiday, are absolutely none of the UK' collective responsibility or indeed business.
He looks to be like a really old boy who is trying to leave some legacy from him time in office, massaging his ego at the same time.
I'm pretty sure the majority (ie 50% +) of the country think the "refugees" in Greece, a country we have collectively bailed out for years and where many of us aspire to holiday, are absolutely none of the UK' collective responsibility or indeed business.
Personally I don't think most of those I have seen are CHILDREN and secondly I am wondering what the drain on local resources will be.
I don't think its unreasonable, racist,caveman or whatever to have those views. I know I have a mental defect as I post erotic photos of female Labour Politicians but apart from that I think I'm well balanced.
Shout loudest, call everyone you don't agree with a techiedave said:
Personally I don't think most of those I have seen are CHILDREN and secondly I am wondering what the drain on local resources will be.
I don't think its unreasonable, racist,caveman or whatever to have those views. I know I have a mental defect as I post erotic photos of female Labour Politicians but apart from that I think I'm well balanced.
They're funded by central government, so aren't going to be a massive drain on local resources. I believe the plan is that they'll be dispersed across the country soon after being assessed, so the impact will be reduced further. I don't think its unreasonable, racist,caveman or whatever to have those views. I know I have a mental defect as I post erotic photos of female Labour Politicians but apart from that I think I'm well balanced.
Age verification is an issue, not helped by the rushed plans. The original plan was for validation to happen before being shipped over here, but that all changed when the French brought forward their demolition plans.
rscott said:
techiedave said:
Personally I don't think most of those I have seen are CHILDREN and secondly I am wondering what the drain on local resources will be.
I don't think its unreasonable, racist,caveman or whatever to have those views. I know I have a mental defect as I post erotic photos of female Labour Politicians but apart from that I think I'm well balanced.
They're funded by central government, so aren't going to be a massive drain on local resources. I believe the plan is that they'll be dispersed across the country soon after being assessed, so the impact will be reduced further. I don't think its unreasonable, racist,caveman or whatever to have those views. I know I have a mental defect as I post erotic photos of female Labour Politicians but apart from that I think I'm well balanced.
Genuine cases of young children refugees then obviously 99% of most humans won't have an issue what I have an issue is the adolescents and older teens, we have enough of those here already who need help with their lives and quite frankly I don't see why would should be some saviours.
Also if thats the case why aren't we helping adolescents and teens who need far more help than these refugees.
fking media. If they didn't report it no one would give a st about Syria or its war.
Also if thats the case why aren't we helping adolescents and teens who need far more help than these refugees.
f
king media. If they didn't report it no one would give a st about Syria or its war.Problem is, we're taking the wrong refugees and by doing so, we are encouraging more of them to risk their lives making the journey.
If policy was to charter a 747 and fly down to the refugee camps on the Syrian border and fill it with genuine people who had fled from IS, I'd be all for it. You have a much greater chance of picking up the right people, and you have a much greater chance of those people wanting to return home once it was over so that their country could be rebuilt. All good - help people in genuine need.
These chancers in Calais - most of the ones we see on the telly aren't Syrian. They're in an EU country and have crossed several EU countries that have rule of law. They are not in danger. The only danger they are in is the journey they have made because a lot of people have made some very bad decisions - rewarding illegal migration rather than attempting to help genuine refugees.
If policy was to charter a 747 and fly down to the refugee camps on the Syrian border and fill it with genuine people who had fled from IS, I'd be all for it. You have a much greater chance of picking up the right people, and you have a much greater chance of those people wanting to return home once it was over so that their country could be rebuilt. All good - help people in genuine need.
These chancers in Calais - most of the ones we see on the telly aren't Syrian. They're in an EU country and have crossed several EU countries that have rule of law. They are not in danger. The only danger they are in is the journey they have made because a lot of people have made some very bad decisions - rewarding illegal migration rather than attempting to help genuine refugees.
Heavens this is so depressing.
Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
rxe said:
Problem is, we're taking the wrong refugees and by doing so, we are encouraging more of them to risk their lives making the journey.
If policy was to charter a 747 and fly down to the refugee camps on the Syrian border and fill it with genuine people who had fled from IS, I'd be all for it. You have a much greater chance of picking up the right people, and you have a much greater chance of those people wanting to return home once it was over so that their country could be rebuilt. All good - help people in genuine need.
These chancers in Calais - most of the ones we see on the telly aren't Syrian. They're in an EU country and have crossed several EU countries that have rule of law. They are not in danger. The only danger they are in is the journey they have made because a lot of people have made some very bad decisions - rewarding illegal migration rather than attempting to help genuine refugees.
The other side of that coin if we want to be economically minded :If policy was to charter a 747 and fly down to the refugee camps on the Syrian border and fill it with genuine people who had fled from IS, I'd be all for it. You have a much greater chance of picking up the right people, and you have a much greater chance of those people wanting to return home once it was over so that their country could be rebuilt. All good - help people in genuine need.
These chancers in Calais - most of the ones we see on the telly aren't Syrian. They're in an EU country and have crossed several EU countries that have rule of law. They are not in danger. The only danger they are in is the journey they have made because a lot of people have made some very bad decisions - rewarding illegal migration rather than attempting to help genuine refugees.
Who's more likely to be a worker, the one who gets himself (and yes, he's a young man) across the continent or the one sitting on his arse in the desert?
964Cup said:
Heavens this is so depressing.
Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
Well put. It's true that our economy needs immigration if it is to continue to function. We haven't let hundreds of thousands of people in out of some altruistic folly. We need them. It's cold, but it's true. Let's deal with the truth that dare not speak its name. Why do you think Merkel allowed 1m migrants into Germany? Compassion? Not really. Germany's birth rate is around 1.4 children per woman of child-bearing age. It's been around that level for some time. What that means is that Germany, like Japan before it, is storing up a massive demographic time bomb. As the current population ages, the ratio of workers to retirees will keep decreasing, meaning that fewer and fewer tax payers have to support more and more pensioners. This isn't viable. Eventually, with that birth rate, you get outright population decline and eventually cease to function as a modern state - Japan, which strongly discourages migration, is heading that way quite quickly. Letting in migrants, whatever the short-term cost, is a very shrewd investment in a future workforce, especially since the migrants in question are from cultures with a higher reproductive rate - although their children will likely tend to the German mean, so it's not necessarily a long-term fix unless sustained. Incidentally, pretty well all European countries are in this position.
The UK's birth rate? 1.9. Better than Germany, but still below replacement rate by some way. We are also even more dependent on current tax payers to fund our welfare state, and have lower productivity (therefore lower tax take per head). We have a stark choice: breed more, with precisely the same impact on schools and social care in the short term as admitting migrants; let in lots of migrants who are young enough to have working lives ahead of them - and let them work; accept that our old age will be hard, poor and shorter than expected. Oh - alternatively we could cull the elderly, or deny them welfare and health care.
So - if you don't want net migration, start shagging now.
Hugo a Gogo said:
The other side of that coin if we want to be economically minded :
Who's more likely to be a worker, the one who gets himself (and yes, he's a young man) across the continent or the one sitting on his arse in the desert?
And who is likely to be a law abiding citizen, the er law abiding citizen, or the guy who has illegally travelled across many borders and most likely paid law breakers to help him with funds possibly from a dubious source. Oh, not forgetting he threw his documents away so we have no clue who it actually is!Who's more likely to be a worker, the one who gets himself (and yes, he's a young man) across the continent or the one sitting on his arse in the desert?
BTW, why do you think they are all trying to get to Britain....to WORK? They can WORK in any country theyb claim asylum, and they are all pretty civilised countries, even France!
They are trying to get to Britain as our welfare state ie the most lucrative. We have even been blamed for the crisis by the likes of France and Netherlands for having such a generous policy toward people who do f
k all! rxe said:
Problem is, we're taking the wrong refugees and by doing so, we are encouraging more of them to risk their lives making the journey.
If policy was to charter a 747 and fly down to the refugee camps on the Syrian border and fill it with genuine people who had fled from IS, I'd be all for it. You have a much greater chance of picking up the right people, and you have a much greater chance of those people wanting to return home once it was over so that their country could be rebuilt. All good - help people in genuine need.
These chancers in Calais - most of the ones we see on the telly aren't Syrian. They're in an EU country and have crossed several EU countries that have rule of law. They are not in danger. The only danger they are in is the journey they have made because a lot of people have made some very bad decisions - rewarding illegal migration rather than attempting to help genuine refugees.
I'd agree if the government hadn't already announced that they're only taking those in the camp as of last week. Any new arrivals won't be considered. As long as they stick to that and actually clear the camp, I see it as a practical solution to get rid of it.If policy was to charter a 747 and fly down to the refugee camps on the Syrian border and fill it with genuine people who had fled from IS, I'd be all for it. You have a much greater chance of picking up the right people, and you have a much greater chance of those people wanting to return home once it was over so that their country could be rebuilt. All good - help people in genuine need.
These chancers in Calais - most of the ones we see on the telly aren't Syrian. They're in an EU country and have crossed several EU countries that have rule of law. They are not in danger. The only danger they are in is the journey they have made because a lot of people have made some very bad decisions - rewarding illegal migration rather than attempting to help genuine refugees.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff